GovPro - August/September 2012

The official publication of NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement

www.govpro.com

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

Coop Meeting of the Minds How do I choose?

Who has the best price?

What about local preferences?

PLUS: Buying Local in Oregon Help From Big Green Data Forum Awards Roundup Fred Marks on T&M Contracts A PENTON MEDIA publication

# " # # # " # ! $ ! !

CONTENTS AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 20, NO. 4

PERSPECTIVES 2 Guest Editorial: Greening government fleets.

4 Procurement Ponderable: Taking on a tough new job.

HOT TOPICS 7 Buying Local: Flexible price agreement reshapes local market.

10 Green Purchasing: Data tools provide more detail to guide purchases.

PEOPLE 27 UPPCC Testing Data: On latest CPPO/CPPB exams.

28 Meet the Pros: UPPCC new certification list.

IN DEPTH

12

Cooperative Purchasing COOP MEETING OF THE MINDS Representatives of various cooperative purchasing organizations share insights on issues facing the government market as cooperatives grow in size and influence – and increase in number.

Based on a discussion at NIGP Forum in Seattle, the article addresses common questions procurement professionals face when navigating the evolving world of cooperative purchasing.

24

BACK PAGES 31 Ad Index 32 Fred Marks: On managing time and materials (T&M) contracts.

Forum Review LOOKING BACK ON NIGP’S 67TH ANNUAL FORUM AND EXPOSITION NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement hosted the NIGP Forum at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Wash., Aug. 18-22. Here is a roundup of awards presented in recognition of procurement professionals “reaching new heights.”

SUBSCRIPTIONS: Free subscriptions to Government Procurement (ISSN 1078-0769) are limited to public-sector purchasing professionals. Those qualified may apply by calling 847-763-9670 or visiting http://www.govpro.com.

Subscriptions for others are available, subject to publisher’s acceptance, at these rates: U.S. and U.S. possessions, $35/1 year, $45/2 years, $7/single copy; Canada, $40/1 year, $60/2 years, $8/single copy; international, $45/1 year, $70/2 years, $10/single copy. Send subscription payment (by check or credit card) to Penton Media Customer Service, Government Procurement, PO Box 2100, Skokie, IL 60076-7800. For all customer service inquiries, call 847-763-9670; fax to 847-763-9673; e-mail governmentprocurement@halldata.com; or visit: http://www.submag.com/ sub/gp. Buy positive

microfilm or microfiche copies of out-of-print issues from National Archive Publishing Co. (NAPC), 300 N. Zeeb Rd., PO Box 998, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-0998; phone: 734-302-6500 or 800-420-6272, ext. 6578.

LIST RENTALS: To rent circulation lists of Government Procurement, contact Merit Direct, 333 Westchester Ave., White Plains, NY 10604; Website: http://www.meritdirect.com/market COPYING: Permission is granted to users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center Inc. (CCC) to photocopy any article (except for those in which separate copyright ownership is indicated on the first page of the article), for a base fee of $1.25 per copy of the article plus 60 cents per page paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923. (Code No. 1078-0769/07 $1.25 + .60).

REPRINTS: For customized article reprints, contact: Wright’s Media, phone: 877-652-5295; email: penton@wrightsmedia.com PUBLISHED: Government Procurement (ISSN 1078-0769) is published bi-monthly by Penton Media Inc., 9800 Metcalf Ave., Overland Park, KS 66212-2216. Canadian Post Publications Mail agreement No. 40612608. Canada return address: Bleuchip International, PO Box 25542, London, ON N6C 6B2. Canadian No. R126431964. Copyright© 2012 by Penton Media Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Government Procurement, PO Box 2100, Skokie, IL 60076-7800.

Periodicals postage paid at Shawnee Mission, KS, and at additional mailing offices.

SALES OFFICES ARE LISTED ON PAGE 4.

PERSPECTIVES [guest column]

Greening government fleets PENTON MEDIA INC.

By Stan Orr challenge of implementing greener practices is the simple – yet, complex – question of “Where do I begin?”

With a focus on greener off-road and heavy equipment fleets, the Association of Equipment Management Professionals (AEMP) has developed its Green Fleet Initiative to guide the way. Still in its early stages, the initiative encourages and recognizes fleet managers in their mission toward a cleaner fleet, and lets them see the benefits of a greener fleet. Fuel savings, employee wellness and public perception are among the numerous benefits of implementing greener practices.

Whether the goal is cost savings, enhancing grant availability or simply to be seen as a more responsible fleet, voluntary investment in greener practices is on the rise. Working together, fleet managers and procurement professionals can take a more active approach to cleaning up fleets, and be recognized for their efforts.

Through its Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum levels, the AEMP program gives fleet managers a clear idea of what types of practices are crucial to a greener fleet. Three of the four levels require upgrading to engines meeting either Tier 2 or Tier 3 emissions standards, which requires the purchasing manager to work with the fleet manager to make things happen.

The City of Euless, Texas, was the first public fleet to receive AEMP’s Green Fleet status, and achieved it at the Silver level. The quest towards Green Fleet Certification began with efforts to utilize alternative fuels and implement a written idle policy. To achieve the Silver level distinction, Kyle McAdams, Euless fleet and facility administrator, also had to upgrade at least 50 percent of his fleet to Tier 2.

In addition to recognizable benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and maintenance cost, greening a fleet also offers benefits not apparent on a balance sheet. In the case of the City of Euless, McAdams’ team plans to use AEMP’s Green Fleet certification to help distinguish them in the ongoing grant process for further alternative energy efforts.

Similarly, Lee County Fleet Management in Florida pursued a greener fleet for more than just the obvious benefits. There’s a common – and unfair – view among the general public that heavy equipment fleets are leading contributors to pollution and greenhouse gas emission. Responding to this perception, Marilyn Rawlings, Lee County fleet manager, was driven to greener practices, and set a high standard for others to follow.

Rawlings is a firm believer in helping others green and improve their fleets in order to positively impact and boost the image of the industry as a whole. “There needs to be somebody who sets the standard, someone who throws down the gauntlet and challenges other governmental fleets to take action,” she says. “We want to raise the bar and hopefully encourage others to do the same.”

Lee County Fleet Management is the first government fleet in the United States to be recognized as an AEMP Platinum-certified Green Fleet.

Lee County’s heavy equipment fleet currently meets all governmental requirements for emissions, while the Platinum certification honors it for meeting all criteria designated by AEMP in its Green Fleet program.

To achieve AEMP’s Green Fleet Bronze Level, either at least 50

A

Continued on page 4

2 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

6151 Powers Ferry Road NW, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: 770-618-0112 FAX: 913-514-3887 http://www.govpro.com EDITORIAL STAFF Bill Wolpin Editorial Director bill.wolpin@penton.com Larry Anderson Editor landerson1976@aim.com Lindsay Isaacs Managing Editor lindsay.isaacs@penton.com Kim Blaski Production Manager kim.blaski@penton.com Joan Roof Audience Marketing Manager joan.roof@penton.com Wes Clark Art Director wesley.clark@penton.com

THE INSTITUTE for PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

151 Spring St. Herndon,VA 20170-5223 Phone: 703-736-8900 Fax: 703-736-2818 Brent Maas Marketing Director bmaas@nigp.org Cathie Patin Communications Editor cpatin@nigp.org EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Debbie Field, CPPO,VCO Virginia Department of General Services Yolanda C. Jones, C.P.M., APP Clark County, Nev. Jay T. McCleary, CPPB City of Red Wing, Minn.

" " " " " ! " # " ! ! ! ! $ "

PERSPECTIVES [discussion] PROCUREMENT PONDERABLE The goal of Government Procurement is to stimulate thought and discussion on significant issues in the profession, to foster collaboration and community, and to encourage creative solutions to common challenges. In that spirit, this issue of Government Procurement presents a hypothetical scenario describing a challenge that procurement professionals might face in the course of their careers.

The following scenario was created by Stephen B. Gordon, PhD, FNIGP, CPPO, who is the Director of the Graduate Certificate Program in Public Procurement and Contract Management at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. If you feel moved to respond – and we hope that you do – we’ll publish your comments in an upcoming issue of Government Procurement.

You have been named the Director of Procurement for the XYZ Urban County Government. The government has a long-standing and well-deserved reputation for corruption and poor business practices generally. You were brought in by the newly-elected County Executive to create, implement and institutionalize a world-class procurement program. Not all stakeholders in the current program are excited that you will be coming on board. It is unclear whether the stakeholders who say they support the County Executive’s goal actually do.

Given that you had a very nice “job-for-life” in a very well-run city halfway across the country, why did you agree to take on this challenge?

What is your time frame for institutionalizing the world-class procurement program?

What are the principal elements of your strategy for creating, implementing, and institutionalizing the world-class program?

Continued from page 2

percent of the fleet must be Tier 2 or better OR a written idle policy must be in place and enforced. Fulfilling both these requirements earns a Silver level certification. The Gold level requires at least 50 percent of the fleet to be Tier 3 or better AND that a written idle policy be in place and enforced. To earn Platinum certification, a fleet must also show 10 percent or more of the fleet uses diesel particulate filter (DPF), diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) or interim or final Tier 4 technologies (in addition to meeting the Gold requirements).

Government fleets interested in applying for AEMP Green Fleet status can view details on the program at aemp.org. A few standard guidelines apply, and all diesel vehicles 25 horsepower and greater need to be included in the fleet application.

On January 1, 2013, changes go into effect for AEMP’s Green Fleet program.

These include new standards for meeting the qualifications on each level. It’s AEMP’s plan to redefine parameters every two years in an effort to encourage fleet managers to stay head of the curve, set goals and continue best practices.

Additionally, certain fleets certified in 2011 will need to be re-certified, as the program will be coming up on its two-year anniversary of existence.

STAN ORR, CAE, is president and chief strategy officer of the Association of Equipment Management Professionals (AEMP), Colorado Springs, Colo.

Government Procurement welcomes your feedback.

Send letters to: publications@nigp.org or Government Procurement, 6151 Powers Ferry Road NW, Suite 200, Atlanta GA 30339, Attn.: Bill Wolpin.

We reserve the right to edit all letters for clarity, brevity, grammar, punctuation, syntax and style.

4 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

GROUP OFFICERS Gregg Herring Group Publisher gregg.herring@penton.com Susie Barroso Group Marketing Director susie.barroso@penton.com Joanne Romanek Online Advertising Specialist joanne.romanek@penton.com

ADVERTISING SALES Dave Gibson Northeast Region Sales dave.gibson@penton.com Phone: 216-931-9469 NY, NC, NJ, OH, MA, CT, Washington DC,VA, MD,VT, DE, ME, NH, RI, Canada (Eastern), SC, GA Bill Perry Midwest Region Sales bill.perry@penton.com Phone: 770-618-0453 IL,WI, PA, MN, WV, AK, TN, MS, AL, FL Ron Corey Midwest Region Sales ronald.corey@penton.com Phone: 248-608-0994 MI, MO, IA, KY, IN, ND, SD, AR, LA, TX, OK Julie Fincher Western Region Sales julie.fincher@penton.com Phone: 913-981-6139 CA, KS, CO, AZ, UT, NE, OR, WA, NV, MT, HI, ID, NM, WY, Canada (Western)

CORPORATE OFFICERS David Kieselstein Chief Executive Officer david.kieselstein@penton.com Nicola Allais Chief Financial Officer Executive Vice President nicola.allais@penton.com Bob MacArthur Senior Vice President bob.macarthur@penton.com

ADVANCING CONVENIENCE

ADVANCING COMMERCE

% ! !! # "#

! " " !" ! & % " ! " !" &

# & # !"! #! " ! & " " ! % " " ! " ! !! " ! " " ! $ & # & ! # $ " & & " !& ! !! # " ! "! " ! ! " ! " !! ! % &! " " "

Learn more at mastercard.com/payroll.

' !"

!"

!" & " !"

" ! !" " " "

HOTTOPICS [buying local] With the MasterCard Dave Reynolds, contract manager for Oregon Procurement’s grocery contract, checks out product quality at the source.

ÂŽ

Payroll Card, Omni Hotels

& Resorts eliminated

more than

128,000*

paper checks in one year—and all the processing fees and printing costs that came along with them.

OREGON GROCERY CONTRACT RESHAPES LOCAL MARKET By Greg Hopkins regon legislators want government agencies, such as schools, to have the option of buying local agricultural products. Oregon’s Procurement Office has responded with a highly flexible price agreement that includes local producers.

The grocery contract is open to all state and local agencies. Through a cooperative purchasing agreement, local agencies from Oregon, Washington and Idaho become “authorized purchasers� by paying an annual fee based on their yearly budget. The fees, which range from $50 to $5,000, also open the door to all statewide price agreements including copy machines, janitorial supplies, industrial supplies, lawn and garden equipment, and many other goods and services.

Local providers on the contract include Childers Meat, Charlie’s Produce, Spring Valley Dairy, and Umpqua Dairy. National suppliers, Sysco and Food Services of America (FSA), are also on the contract and compete with local providers. For orders of less than $5,000, agencies can buy from local farms of their choice, although agencies receiving USDA Child Nutrition Funds who do this must get two or three quotes. Agencies can even spend up to 10 percent more for local food compared to food coming from out of state, although contract manager Dave Reynolds reports “there hasn’t been a single instance� when this allowance was needed. “The local prices have been the same or even lower than the prices from the large carriers,� he said.

O

XXX HPWQSP DPN r GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT | 7

See how Omni Hotels simplified payday with MasterCard.

Download the case study at mastercard.com/payroll.

*MasterCard, “Payroll Card Saves Time and Money for Omni Hotels & Resorts and Its Associates,� Case Study (2011): 4.

Š2012 MasterCard.

HOTTOPICS [buying local] Suppliers on the price agreement comply with the requirements of the Federal Child Nutrition Funds, which “encourages” doing business with local sources and requires fair and open competition. Since the grocery contract encourages price comparison among providers, free market competition is created that keeps prices competitive and reduces the hassle of dealing with requests for price increases.

Agency buyers can request new items on the delivery list from Sysco or FSA if they meet a minimum order requirement of about five cases a week. In one example, an agency wanted grains from Bob’s Red Mill and was able to have these products added to regular deliveries.

Reynolds worked with Todd Pommier, food service manager at the Oregon State Hospital, and other agency buyers to iron out the details. Reynolds said his main question was “How do we set up a contract that will generate ongoing competition?”

In addition, Reynolds wanted a contract that would allow an agency to buy a load of carrots from a local farm – or fresh local meat – without shipping it from two states away. The grocery contract with multiple suppliers makes these goals possible – and more.

RESULTS EXCEED EXPECTATIONS Since the contract launched in 2008, quarterly sales have increased at least 250 percent to about $8 million annually. Agencies realize the advantages of using the contract, rather than creating their own bids, and prices can’t be beat. One school was paying over a dollar per pint for milk. Now they pay about a quarter of that, which quickly repays their annual fee to use the contract. Across the board, the grocery contracts have experienced a 4.59 percent cost reduction since 2011. Negotiations under way currently are for deeper cost reductions on fresh fruits and vegetables.

The number of agencies using the contract also is growing. Recently, two large school districts in Washington with a combined annual spend of more than $2 million have signed on. The Department of Corrections, with a huge annual spend, is also evaluating potential cost savings by switching to the contract.

RURAL BUYERS BENEFIT Because of the large number of agencies using the contract, extending delivery routes into remote areas is feasible for the large carriers. Lori Smith buys food supplies for the school in Dayville, Ore., which has a population of 111 people, is 39 miles from the closest town, and has 65 children in the entire school system. Previously, Smith has had a $5,000 minimum for food deliveries, which meant

8 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

twice a year she ordered items that could be frozen.

Recently, thanks to the new contract, she has been able to get regular food deliveries from Food Services of America for a $400 minimum order.

“When we achieved that, I considered it a milestone in the contract,” Reynolds said.

In a small place like Dayville, the person doing the buying might be stocking shelves in the morning and driving a bus in the afternoon. The plug-andplay price agreement takes several headaches away.

LESSONS LEARNED AND NEXT STEPS There has been some market reshuffling due to the aggressive pricing and ease of use of the new contract. A large supplier consortium that acts as a broker to schools has lost some schools who have decided to order directly from the contract. A few suppliers bumped from long-established ties are not happy. However, overall the contract has had few problems and has generated many benefits.

The next contract rebid will likely be in the summer of 2013. Reynolds is analyzing ways to make the contract even better. A few of the changes he hopes to see include: > Foods that meet the USDA Child Nutrition Certification clearly tagged in catalogs so school purchasers know what qualifies for Federal reimbursement. > An efficient, wider delivery network. There may be a way to use empty space on trucks that are already going to delivery destinations, especially in remote areas. Another idea is to explore more efficient distribution hubs. > A way to accept and distribute donated food. > Improved process for setting up accounts and viewing suppliers’ catalogs. > Increased outreach to schools and other food buyers to inform them of the contract, how it works and what other price agreements from which they can benefit. > More vendors on the contract, especially local producers. > More specific guidance on making direct buys from local farms, dairies, orchards, and meat packers.

For those contemplating a similar contract, Reynolds has one piece of advice: “Listen to your customers and design the contract to meet their needs.

And don’t listen to all of the people who say you can’t implement your ideas. They’re usually wrong.”

GREG HOPKINS is training specialist, procurement services, for the state of Oregon.

Law Enforcement & Security

Firefighting Protection

Emergency Response & Recovery

Information Technology

Solutions That Save

Time, Money, and Lives.

Ensuring citizen safety and supporting critical business operations are important even during tough economic times. At GSA we offer direct access to a wide range of quality local and global contractors offering products and services at pre-negotiated ceiling prices. Our online tools and customer support specialists are available and ready to help you respond quickly to your state and local needs. GSA helps you generate efficiencies and savings for the American people.

To learn more, call 703-605-9155 or visit www.gsa.gov/stateandlocal.

HOTTOPICS [green purchasing]

Big Green Data EMERGING TOOLS GIVE GOVERNMENT PURCHASERS BETTER ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION By Scot Case overnment agencies looking to buy greener products and services are examining new tools to provide greater flexibility to define and identify greener choices. GoodGuide, which was recently purchased by UL Environment, collects publicly available environmental information on more than 175,000 products. Government purchasers are beginning to experiment with ways to use the information to make greener purchasing decisions.

Traditional environmental standards such as those developed by Green Seal and UL Environment (including the EcoLogo and GREENGUARD standards also owned by UL Environment) provide government purchasers with a binary decision point – products are either certified as meeting the relevant environmental standard or not.

GoodGuide and other big data-driven solutions such as Greencurement and the EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) registry allow government purchasers to review more detailed information and make additional distinctions among the products. More data also makes it possible for different organizations with different definitions of green to identify greener products using a common data source to identify products meeting their unique needs.

The State of California, for example, focuses on different environmental considerations than Georgia. The City of San Francisco defines green differently than Kalamazoo, Mich. All of them, however, can base purchasing decisions on information from a common data repository.

GoodGuide and other similar approaches make it possible for each entity to define its own environmental requirements and quickly identify products meeting those requirements.

G

STANDARDS MAKE GREEN PURCHASING EASIER Back in 1999 when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was evaluating bids for greener cleaning products, it received boxes and boxes of hard copy information from suppliers claiming to provide greener cleaning products. The Commonwealth had requested information on more than a dozen different environmental criteria such as aquatic toxicity, pH, biodegradability, and the results of eye and skin

10 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

irritability tests. Reviewing and comparing all of the information proved incredibly challenging.

To avoid the challenge of wading through reams of data for future solicitations, Massachusetts and hundreds of other government purchasing professionals began requiring cleaning products to be certified to the Green Seal or EcoLogo standards.

Requiring certification drastically simplifies the solicitation process, but there are several challenges with this approach: > All certified products are treated as equally good. While this is true for all standards and certifications, it does not make it easy to compare products to see which of the certified products is “greener.” > Standards and certifications are not available for all of the products and services governments buy. > Traditional environmental standards need to be updated on a regular basis because scientific understanding of the risks and benefits of various materials, chemistries, and technologies changes. Not all environmental standards, however, are updated as frequently as needed.

BIG DATA CAN MAKE GREEN PURCHASING EASIER Environmental data management tools like GoodGuide (goodguide.com), Greencurement (greencurement.com), or the EPEAT registry (epeat. net) provide purchasers with the ability to compare products based on a variety of environmental data points. They permit purchasers to identify and prioritize the environmental features they care most about and use those preferences to identify products meeting their requirements.

Big data solutions also make it possible for government purchasers to have near-instantaneous information about the latest environmental benefits and concerns of their purchasing specifications.

There is no need to wait for standards to be updated. Purchasing specifications can be quickly updated based on the latest information.

Had this technology been available in 1999 when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was initially seeking greener cleaning products, the reams of data Massachusetts suppliers submitted could have been managed easily

GREEN DATA SOURCES in a system that permitted Massachusetts purchasers to sort products based on their environmental profiles.

EPEAT – epeat.net. Focused exclusively on desktop and laptop computers and monitors (with plans to expand into other electronic product categories), EPEAT provides detailed environmental information on more than 2,000 products. The products are ranked as bronze, silver, and gold based on the IEEE 1680 standard. The database also provides additional product information permitting purchasers to compare products based on things like energy efficiency, recyclability, and the environmental practices of the manufacturer.

ENHANCEMENTS UNDER WAY As government purchasers begin examining big data tools, they are suggesting enhancements that will make the tools even more useful. One enhancement is providing additional assurance about the accuracy of the data contained within the systems. Government purchasers now rely on the certification results from organizations like Green Seal and UL Environment that investigate products to ensure they meet relevant environmental standards. Systems like GoodGuide, Greencurement, and the EPEAT registry rely on data that has not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Concerns about data quality are being addressed by integrating thirdparty validation into the data collection processes.

Another significant enhancement is merging the environmental filtering capabilities of these data tools into existing online purchasing systems. This makes it possible for government purchasing cooperatives or other suppliers with online ordering systems to present purchasers with greener products meeting their local environmental purchasing requirements.

GoodGuide – goodguide.com. Provides environmental, health, and social data on more than 175,000 products and 5,000 companies by compiling information from more than 1,000 different sources. GoodGuide helps purchasers identify safe, healthy and socially responsible products and companies. It currently offers detailed product information for personal care, household chemical, and food products, as well as appliances, apparel, and automobiles. It allows users to find and choose products quickly, easily, and according to personally customizable search criteria.

Greencurement – greencurement.com. With product, environmental, and health information on tens of thousands of commercially available products aggregated from dozens of data sources, Greencurement makes it possible to search for products with specific environmental benefits. Greencurement also offers a variety of consulting services to help government purchasers use the data.

SCOT CASE has been researching and promoting responsible purchasing for 17 years. He is market development director for UL Environment. Contact him via e-mail at scot.case@ ulenvironment.com or in Reading, PA, at 610-779-3770.

D ´&/($1(5Ο ZD\ WR SXUFKDVH

A L i q u i d i t y S e r v i c e s M a r ke t p l a ce

1-3$ FRQWUDFWV DUH FRPSHWLWLYHO\ ELG RQ \RXU EHKDOI DQG ZLOO FRQQHFW \RX WR QDWLRQDOO\ OHYHUDJHG FRQWUDFW SULFLQJ $ QR FRVW QR REOLJDWLRQ RU OLDELOLW\ 0HPEHUVKLS LV DOO \RX QHHG WR ´VZHHSÎź XS WKH VDYLQJV <RXU Ă&#x20AC; UVW VWHS" -RLQ WRGD\ DW ZZZ QMSDFRRS RUJ

ZZZ QMSDFRRS RUJ _ 3XEOLF :RUNV &RQWUDFW 3XUFKDVLQJ 6ROXWLRQV

XXX HPWQSP DPN r GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT | 11

IN DEPTH [coop purchase]

Coop Meeting of the Minds Representatives of cooperative purchasing reflect on its growing impact on government procurement ith so many coops, how can I choose the best one? How do I know if a coop follows my local legal requirements? How do I deal with local preferences? Am I really getting the best price?

Such questions are common with the proliferation of cooperative purchasing in the government procurement sector. The rise of coops has provided both a wealth of benefits and more than a little confusion for procurement professionals tasked with maximizing the usefulness of the various cooperatives for their local governments.

To provide insight, representatives from several cooperatives gathered at NIGP Forum in Seattle last month for a meeting of the minds moderated by Bill Wolpin, editorial director of Government Procurement magazine.

Here are some edited excerpts from that discussion, covering several issues facing the government market as cooperatives grow in size and influence – and increase in number.

TOO MANY COOPS: HOW DO YOU CHOOSE? Peter Torvik, managing director, U.S. Communities Government Purchasing Alliance: We know from Chinese restaurants and mutual funds that choice isn’t something that helps in every situation. This is an industry that has had no barriers to entry over the last five years. We are looking forward to a period of searching and consolidation and standard-setting and taking this whole thing to the next

12 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

level. We know you cannot solve your agency’s budgetary problems buying a pencil 10 percent cheaper. We need to look for things that have real budgetary impact, that really save your department time and money and are transparent and clear. We’re going to just have to innovate faster as a group.

David Yarkin, whose consulting company Government Sourcing Solutions helps governments save money by using cooperatives: There is nothing in your statute that says you have to compare each and every single cooperative purchasing agreement out there for everything you will use them for. If you do that, it defeats one of the purposes of cooperative purchasing, which is to shorten the procurement cycle and make it less labor intensive for your staff. [When I was chief procurement officer in Pennsylvania,] we would find a cooperative that met our legal requirement, solved a business need, and, most important, saved us real hard dollars. If you do that, you have no obligation to go to every cooperative out there. Your obligation is to the taxpayers. Don’t be intimidated by all the options.

Duff Erholtz, membership manager, National Joint Powers Alliance: At the end of the day, there isn’t one consortium with a comprehensive set of solutions to serve you. I’m not sure, collectively, we have a comprehensive set of solutions. Don’t get hung up on what type of a coop or what type of a program. If you need a specific brand, say Toro, you have a limited number of options. Some things everyone has. Some companies everyone has. But for the majority [of products], there will be [fewer choices].

THE OUTSOURCING ASPECT OF COOPERATIVE PURCHASING Wayne Casper, group director, National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance (National IPA): What youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re doing when you use a cooperative is, in a sense, youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re substituting your source selection process with the source selection process by somebody else. What you need to think about is: Who awarded that contract, who bid it, who administered it? Are you confident with their procurement processes and that they did as good a job as you would do yourself?

Tim Hay, state of Oregon, member of Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA): With the WSCA/NASPO (National Association of State Procurement Officials) model, outsourcing isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t really the key. We use a collaborative effort and work with all the states in the development of the RFP. One state is designated as the lead state that actually releases the RFP, but we work in collaboration with five or six states that comprise the WSCA sourcing team for a particular commodity.

Right now there are 38 WSCA or NASPO combination contracts, and a procurement professional participated from each state on the sourcing team. We are more about insourcing than outsourcing, and we use resources and talent of each of the states to develop the cooperative agreements.

David Yarkin: You canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t outsource the entire procurement function to a cooperative. You can break the world of piggybacking into two buckets on the government side â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the large entities, for whom the large coop contracts wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be good enough, and then other, smaller governments for whom the basic pricing from a cooperative contract are pretty good, and better than they could do in their own.

One idea to take advantage of cooperative prices, while promoting competition, would be to hold a â&#x20AC;&#x153;bakeoffâ&#x20AC;? and allow multiple cooperatives to compete based on price and other qualitative factors instead of doing a full-fledged RFP. You can shave a lot of time off a procurement cycle.

Peter Torvik: We donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t believe that all cooperatives follow the same procedures. After 15 years in the business, there is still confusion out there and there still isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t the confidence we would like to see to use any of the cooperative contracts presented to you. This is an embryonic industry; itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s way less than a percent of your discretionary spend across the country. If it even went to 5 or 10 percent, it would save governments tens of billions of dollars a year. We want to see the industry go to the next level and find a set of standards you can all understand and be confident in. Then we all benefit.

Every dollar you spend in a coop should save you money, and thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the atmosphere weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re looking for in the future.

DEALING WITH LOCAL PREFERENCES Wayne Casper: The broader question of local preferences [is one] that everybody in public procurement has dealt with from day one. That issue will always come up. My experience has been that when the economy is down, you get more of it. All of a sudden there are more local vendors than there were when everything was going well. But part

of it will vary by cooperative contract. Some contracts are national contracts that sell directly. But you have your bigthree office supply companies â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Office Depot, OfficeMax and Staples, for example. In most cities they have local big-box stores where they hire a lot of people. A lot of the cooperative contracts are with major manufacturers, and they are resold through local dealers. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the case with office furniture, copiers and equipment. Some heavy equipment contracts have local dealers that have been in business in the local community for 50 or 60 years; they are very strong in the local community. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s going to depend on the contract itself, but you can work around it with many contracts.

Tim Hay: Depending upon the commodity and the political sensitivity, there are some contracts that are let that have both a national presence as well as a regional preference. When we did the sourcing team for express mail and small package delivery services, we actually had local components for in-state delivery services in both California and Alaska. We are sensitive to that need, and if there are needs for local preferences, it is built into the solicitation.

Peter Torvik: We get letters forwarded from local vendors and politicians. It started out in the office supplies business from day one. The most recent I remember is a plywood vendor in Florida called up and was mad because our HD Supply contract was a much better deal than he could provide locally. It was a woman-owned or minority contract, I canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t remember which one, so there was a lot of political fireworks for that politician. It was actually a Congressman. But what it came down to was the local vendor didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t like the effect on his profit margin, and he was blaming the U.S. Communities contract for affecting that. But really, any competitor in that market, whether it was the Home Depot store down the road or another lumber yard, could affect that pricing and profit margin. I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know how you justify continuing to charge excessive prices. The bottom line, the city or county can do whatever it wants to do. They donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to purchase from a coop. If they have that political need (to buy locally), and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s worse in some places than others, it can be handled.

GETTING THE BEST PRICE Peter Torvik: From our standpoint, volume is very important. You have to have eventual volume to get manufacturers to push the prices where they need to be.

We try not to do anything where we arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t seeing 50 or 100 million dollars in eventual sales for that contract, although we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t always get there. We have a best price guarantee, so you donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t see a manufacturer with six contracts with various prices on them. Then you have to audit those contracts to make sure they live up to that price guarantee. The fantastic part is that our collective activities here are repricing entire industries, office supplies being one. Whether they are buying from a coop or not, they are buying office supplies 10 percent cheaper than they were 15 years ago. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a goal we all have, which is to reprice entire industries.â&#x20AC;?

Chris Penny, vice president of sales, The Cooperative Purchasing Network (TCPN): One of the positives resulting

XXX HPWQSP DPN r GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT | 13

IN DEPTH [coop purchase] from the expansion of cooperatives, both in the amount of use coming through a cooperative and the number of cooperatives, is that the suppliers to the vendors are becoming more astute and aware of cooperative purchasing.

HP, for example, is now saying they will give a cooperative discount, to lower the basis points on their toners and offer the pricing [to the various coop contracts]. Some of the major suppliers are becoming aware and lowering overall government prices regardless of what platform you use.

WHEN TO USE A COOP David Yarkin: There are 31 different flavors of cooperative purchasing. You make a mistake by defining it too narrowly.

When I was in Pennsylvania, we were going out for bid on a commercial off-the-shelf software. As we were working on the RFP, we saw that Massachusetts had a contract. So we analyzed the contract on software in Massachusetts and compared its prices with the prices we were paying currently.

We saw we would save $4 million by piggybacking on it. We did it. We got a tiny bit of pushback from a couple of local suppliers that faded away after a couple of weeks. We took the $4 million in savings and put it in the bank. My job was to the get the best deal for my taxpayers, as long as it met the legal requirements. There are a lot of different ways to look at this.

Phil Vasquez, independent consultant on cooperative

contracting: Cooperatives in general have gotten pretty standard in the ways they do things. You have to ask how the contract meets your agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs. At the end of the day, it has to make sense for your taxpayers. You have to do your due diligence and be a good steward for the citizens and look at what contract makes the best sense.

ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS Tim Hay: WSCA is very conscientious about contacting each state before we release a solicitation so they are aware of what we are doing regarding future contracts to give them the opportunity to advertise that solicitation. Some states have very strict solicitation laws, so if they didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t originally advertise it, they canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t participate in it. We want to make sure they have the opportunity to advertise.

WSCAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s model is that states collaborate with each other, down to the end-users, to make sure those statesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs are met in the solicitation. Ninety-five percent of the time, the states in the sourcing team have the same needs as states not on the sourcing team, so all their needs are met.

Paul Stembler, WSCA/NASPO Cooperative Development Coordinator: The issue you want to start with is who comes closest to following the process you have to follow.

You have to deal with people inside your jurisdiction. Those are the issues you need to look at. What kind of level of response

Our most popular product is compliance.

Furniture OfďŹ ce Supplies Technology Flooring Maintenance Compliance

Shop at PSS and you can piggyback on a growing list of competitively solicited contracts by lead public agencies in compliance with generally accepted public procurement standards. PSS is the place to ďŹ nd what you need and a better way to buy it: s 4HE EASIEST FASTEST WAY TO SAVE ON everything from ofďŹ ce supplies and computers to furniture and ďŹ&#x201A;ooring. s .O PARTICIPATION FEE s 0ART OF %DUCATIONAL )NSTITUTIONAL #OOPERATIVE 0URCHASING A YEAR OLD NOT FOR PROlT GROUP PURCHASING ORGANIZATION s ,EVERAGE OUR BUYING POWER AND STREAMLINE compliant purchasing.

Visit www.publicsourcing.org to start saving on the things you need.

14 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

and process do you need in this case? Each one of you is different. There are 56 members of NASPO and 56 sets of rules.

Tom Post, president of AEPA (Association of Educational Purchasing Agencies): With AEPA, all of our organizations are represented in 26 states, and we advertise and solicit in each individual state. We give the local manufacturer or distributor an opportunity to bid on any of our contracts.

TRANSPARENCY AND HANDLING COMPLAINTS Wayne Casper: National IPA has a business review meeting quarterly with all vendor partners to go through any issues during the last quarter [including the lead agency].

Tom Post: If you have a complaint with one of the vendors we selected, we would get involved and go to that vendor and solve the problem. We would find out what that problem is and make sure you’re satisfied. That’s our job, that’s part of what we do.

Duff Erholtz: We do an annual review, but we would get involved at any time. Vendors have a lot at stake because of their award of a national cooperative; they are not going to let one complaint jeopardize what could be a much larger [sale].

Every [coop] has a web site where all the documentation is available, you can see the solicitation, the advertisement, all the information you need, and dedicated staff can help you [navigate] the web site and get you where you need to go.

Tim Hay: At least from WSCA, we have all the [RFPs and supporting documents]. They all meet that lead state’s requirements for documentation and keeping the documentation forever, almost.

Peter Torvik: If you’re dealing with the sales department [related to complaints], that’s not who we’re dealing with.

That’s a real advantage for our coops, especially at the local level. We are dealing with higher-ups, such as presidents or executive directors, people who are responsible for the contract and take it very seriously. It’s a large part of their sales. It’s not left to the local distribution.

Paul Stembler: If there is a problem, we need to know about it. Waiting six or eight months or a year or two or four years doesn’t accomplish much for us. We need to know about it now and have the facts so we can proceed to solve the problem.

WHAT’S NEXT? Peter Torvik: We have a fully operational e-commerce site that allows you to choose a lightbulb from HD Supply or Graybar, for example. The suppliers aren’t always happy about that, but I think it represents the first step in the direction [of offering a web-based system to compare coop prices]. When you buy from Amazon, you can see all these different booksellers. Amazon has taken the central role of guaranteeing a satisfactory transaction.

We are a few years from someone taking that central role.

The first job is to make sure of compliance and that you could buy with confidence from everyone represented, and then the price takes care of itself after that.

All Cooperatives Are Not the Same

7E RE JUST LIKE 5 3 #OMMUNITIES

7HAT -AKES 5 3 #OMMUNITIES $IFFERENT Transparent Procurement Process:

Oversight and Accountability:

(1) The development of the solicitation, evaluation of the responses and award determination are performed by public employees of a political subdivision* that is separate from and independent of the cooperative organization.

(Lead Public Agency)

(1) An Advisory Board of over 20 public procurement professionals to ensure processes and methods used are of the highest standards

(2) A National Evaluation Team of public procurement professionals from multiple political subdivisions* participate in the creation, evaluation and award process.

Public Agency Protection & Supplier Contract Compliance: (1) Quarterly performance reviews with supplier executives and the Lead Public Agency to evaluate performance and compliance.

(2) A Supervisory Board of National Public Associations to oversee the cooperative and to ensure the interests of their public agency members are served and protected.

(2) Commitments: Corporate, Pricing, Economy & Sales.

(3) Annual independent third-party supplier audits to ensure contract compliance.

(3) Field Program Managers focused on supporting public agencies and resolving problems or concerns.

(3) All decisions regarding the awarded master agreement, pricing changes etc., are made by the Lead Public Agency NOT the staff of the cooperative.

Some questions you may want to ask prior to using a cooperative thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x153;just like U.S. Communitiesâ&#x20AC;? s 7HAT KIND OF INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT OF THE s 7ERE THE SOLICITATION EVALUATION AND AWARD ALL cooperative is in place? performed by employees of a political subdivision that is independent of the cooperative organization? s $OES THIS CONTRACT MEET THE LEGAL requirements of my agency and state? s 7AS THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS SUBSTANTIALLY If in doubt ask your attorney. similar to the process your agency is required to use? *A political subdivision is generally defined in most states as local governments created by the states to help fulfill their obligations. Political subdivisions include counties, cities, towns, villages, and special districts such as school districts, water districts, park districts, and airport districts

Visit uscommunities.org/coopstandards for a due diligence check list

7HAT S IN A Commitment?

!LL OF THESE ARE MY BEST DEAL

For more than 15 years, U.S. Communities has been a leader in providing public agencies and nonprofits the best value in the procurement of goods and services. In doing so, U.S. Communities has never wavered in putting the public agency participants interests first during the solicitation process. We enforce our four key commitments expected of each supplier which separates U.S. Communities from all other cooperatives. Although some suppliers complain U.S. Communities commitments are â&#x20AC;&#x153;too onerous,â&#x20AC;? we are dedicated to protecting a participating public agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ethical, legal, and financial interests at all times.

Corporate Commitment: 4HIS ENABLES Pricing Commitment: 9OU CAN HAVE 5 3 #OMMUNITIES TO ACCESS THE TOP PEACE OF MIND KNOWING THAT YOU ARE SUPPLIER EXECUTIVES TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS ACCESSING THE SUPPLIER S LOWEST OVERALL AND IMPROVE PRODUCTS SERVICE AND PRICING THAT THEY OFFER TO PUBLIC PRICING ON BEHALF OF OUR AGENCIES 9OU WON T FIND OUT LATER THAT PUBLIC AGENCY PARTICIPANTS YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN A BETTER DEAL BY GOING TO BID OR ACCESSING A DIFFERENT CONTRACT VEHICLE HELD BY THAT SUPPLIER

Economy Commitment: 4HIS ENSURES THAT THE SUPPLIER IS WILLING AND ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE NECESSARY DATA

DOCUMENTATION AND ANALYSES THAT YOU NEED TO VALIDATE YOUR DECISION TO UTILIZE THEIR 5 3 #OMMUNITIES CONTRACT

Some questions you may want to ask prior to using a cooperative thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x153;just like U.S. Communitiesâ&#x20AC;? s $OES THE COOPERATIVE MANAGE THE SUPPLIERS /R DO THE SUPPLIERS MANAGE THE COOPERATIVE

s (OW DOES THE COOPERATIVE MANAGE SUPPLIER COMPLIANCE NATIONWIDE

s 7HAT KIND OF PUBLIC AGENCY PROTECTIONS ARE REQUIRED OF THE SUPPLIERS

s (OW MANY STAFF DOES THE COOPERATIVE HAVE

s (OW MANY SUPPLIERS DOES THE COOPERATIVE HAVE AND HOW MANY COOPERATIVES DOES THE SUPPLIER BELONG TO

s (OW MANY STAFF PER SUPPLIER DOES THE COOPERATIVE HAVE

Sales Commitment: 4HIS REQUIRES THE SUPPLIER S SALES FORCE TO BE AWARE OF AND KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THEIR 5 3 #OMMUNITIES CONTRACT 4HIS ENSURES THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATION YOU NEED AND ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS FROM YOUR LOCAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING THE PRODUCTS

SERVICES PRICING AND GENERAL 4 #S COVERED UNDER THE CONTRACT

Visit uscommunities.org/coopstandards for a due diligence check list

PROUD U.S. COMMUNITIES SUPPLIERS, COMMI

TTED TO SERVING PUBLIC AGENCIES

XXX HPWQSP DPN r GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT | 19

M IT TE PROUD U.S. COMMUNITIES SUPPLIERS, COM

D TO SERVING PUBLIC AGENCIES

Helping to Balance Your Workload » No bid process Nationally solicited; competitively awarded contract

» 1 supplier partner Simplifying purchasing of your MRO products

» Multiple buying options Online, over the phone or in person

» Full service and support Recommending solutions to increase efficiencies

» 4 million parts Making sure your people get the right MRO supplies to complete the job

Enjoy the benefits of working with one supplier that can make purchasing MRO supplies easy, fast and affordable at negotiated contract pricing - Applied Industrial Technologies – a proud supplier partner of U.S. Communities.

www.Applied.com/uscommunities

1-866-482-4152 20 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

PROUD U.S. COMMUNITIES SUPPLIERS, COMMI

TTED TO SERVING PUBLIC AGENCIES

ENHANCING PERFORMANCE THROUGH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

MOBILITY

|

OFFICE PRODUCTIVITY

NETWORK & SECURITY

|

DATA CENTER

|

UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS & COLLABORATION

|

VIRTUALIZATION

|

DATA PROTECTION

|

CLOUD

Insight Public Sector is proud to have served as a trusted technology advisor to public entities for more than 20 years.

Insight offers hardware and software products from the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leading manufacturers and publishers, in addition to advanced IT services and solutions. Our mission is simple: to assist state, local and federal government agencies, educational institutions, public safety entities and nonproďŹ t organizations in leveraging technology to cost-effectively deliver on their mission to the public.

Insight Public Sector â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in partnership with U.S. Communities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; simpliďŹ es the procurement, implementation and management of the solutions and technologies your organization needs. By taking advantage of Insightâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s competitivelysolicited U.S. Communities Contract for Technology Products/Equipment and Services/Solutions, youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re assured of Insightâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best available price on our full portfolio of products and solutions.

To learn more ways Insight can help you deliver on your mission to the public, contact us at 1.800.546.0578 or at USCommunities@insight.com. Or visit us online at www.ips.insight.com/uscommunities.

1.800.INSIGHT W IPS.INSIGHT.COM INSIGHT

|

INSIGHT ENTERPRISES INC

|

@INSIGHTENT

Copyright Š 2012 Insight Direct USA, Inc. All rights reserved. Insight and the Insight logo are registered trademarks of Insight Direct USA, Inc. All other company and product names are trademarks or service marks of their respective owners.

XXX HPWQSP DPN r GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT | 21

M IT TE PROUD U.S. COMMUNITIES SUPPLIERS, COM

Proud Supplier:

Contract 11019

To save you time and money, our government support team will help you reduce procurement lead times, lower administrative costs, and take advantage of our competitively solicited U.S. Communities contract—all while providing free, next-day delivery* on over 22,000 quality maintenance and repair products and services.

It’s an honor to serve you.

Delivered by professionals.

For professionals.

FREE. Shop online for more than 5,000 new safety products! hdsupplysolutions.com | 1-855-526-9473

*On most orders to most areas. © 2012 HDS IP Holding, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

ADV-12-6597

D TO SERVING PUBLIC AGENCIES

IN DEPTH [NIGP awards]

NIGPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 67th Annual Forum and Products Exposition Procurement professionals from federal, provincial, state and local governmental agencies in the United States and Canada gathered for the 67th Annual Forum and Products Exposition hosted

by NIGP: The Institute of Public Procurement at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Wash. Awards presented at NIGP Forum Aug. 18-22 recognized procurement professionals â&#x20AC;&#x153;reaching new heights.â&#x20AC;?

2012 NIGP CHAPTER OF THE YEAR AWARDS

Category: Small Chapter â&#x20AC;&#x201C; less than 80 members Winner: Copper Chapter of NIGP > Expanded access to professional development programs by purchasing the NIGP Signature Series to meet member needs for educational scholarship opportunities.

> Provided recertification scholarship to nine individuals. > Set up conference calls for monthly chapter meetings to allow participation by members constrained by time or travel.

Category: Medium Chapter â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 81 to 200 members Winner: Central Florida Chapter of NIGP

> Created a Certification Reward Program. All members obtaining certification have their chapter membership dues paid for the following year. > Led the way in use of social media, educating other chapters on its use and engaging their members. Also launched the chapter blog as a portal for procurement-related topics, chapter surveys and chapter library.

Portal is linked to various social media outlets. The chapterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s social media RRS feed allows deployment of content to five sites at once. > Established the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bring a Guest Programâ&#x20AC;? to improve member recruitment.

Category: Large Chapter â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 201 or more members Winner: Virginia Association of Governmental Purchasing Chapter of NIGP > Developed and implemented the Leading Light Agency Award Program to recognize an agency that has taken the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Leadâ&#x20AC;? with innovative ideas and achievements to â&#x20AC;&#x153;Lightâ&#x20AC;? the way for other public procurement professionals. > Legislative Committee developed a Legislative Survey to gather and analyze what Commonwealth of Virginia agencies spend on legal newspaper advertisements required for Request for Proposals. The information will be used for VAGPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2012 legislative strategies, including working to eliminate mandatory newspaper advertisements. > Developed and implemented a new Certification Scholarship to reimburse a minimum of 12 members for UPPCC exam fees each year.

XXX HPWQSP DPN r GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT | 23

IN DEPTH [NIGP awards] NIGP AWARD WINNERS Darin L. Matthews, FNIGP, CPPO, C.P.M., Director of Business Operations, North Clackamas School District, Ore., won the Albert H. Hall Memorial Award, NIGP’s top honor. This award recognizes a former or present member who has made outstanding contributions to NIGP over an extended period of time. Established in 1977, the Institute named the award in honor of NIGP’s founder, Albert H. Hall, who served as the organization’s first Executive Vice President from 1944 to 1975. As a writer, author and teacher, Darin Matthews is recognized everywhere as a true professional who constantly promotes cutting edge practices and regularly pushes the envelope.

Carol Hodes, CAE, Director of Professional Development at NIGP (left), received the 2012 Anne Deatherage Meritorious Service Award in honor of NIGP’s Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Anne Deatherage, who served the Institute in a variety of leadership capacities from 1972 to 2005.

Presenting the award (right) is Marcheta Gillespie, NIGP’s first vice president.

NIGP presented the Distinguished Service Award (DSA) to three

24 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

outstanding professionals: Lynda Allair, CPPO, Retired, BPS Supply Chain Secretariat, Cavan, Ontario (left); Dr. Guy Callender, FCIPS, Professor and Chair in Leadership of Strategic Procurement, Curtin School of Business, Perth, Australia (center); and Judy Meisel, CPPO, CPPB Purchasing Manager, City of Olathe, Kan. (right).

Laurie M. Roberts, CPPB, District School Board of Pasco County, Fla. (left), received the 2012 Professional Buyer of the Year Award recognizing non-supervisory professionals who have made significant contributions to purchasing, professional development, their entity, their chapter, and the Institute. NIGP’s Third Vice President DeWight Dopslauf (right) presented the award.

Carrie F. Woodell, CPPO, CPPB, CFCM, C.P.M., A.P.P., City of Winter Park, Fla., (left) won the 2012 Professional Manager of the Year Award recognizing management professionals who have made significant contributions to purchasing, professional development, their entity, their chapter, and the Institute.

NIGP’s First Vice President Marcheta Gillespie (right) presented the award.

Spirit of NIGP Awards recognize three unsung heroes of the profession who have played a significant role in shaping the organization. Winners are Ken Babich, BCom, CPPO, Director, Purchasing Services, University of Victoria (left); Jay Jackus, CPPO, CPPB, Purchasing Administrator, City of Tarpon Springs, Fla.(center); and Pam McComb, NIGP photographer. (right)

The 2011 Lewis E. Spangler Purchasing Professional Award from the International Federation of Purchasing and Supply Management (IFPSM) was presented to Mike Bevis, CPPO, J.D. CPPO, CPSM, C.P.M., PMP, purchasing director, City of Naperville, Ill. (left), for outstanding commitment to the profession of Purchasing and Supply Management by evidence of successful contribution to the bottom line and by support given to collaborators in the area of education and training.

Don Buffum, NIGP’s second vice president (right), presented the award.

New this year, the Measure Up Award recognizes one NIGP agency member best using the free member tool called Measure to capture and report savings

and efficiency gains through procurement activities. The inaugural recipient of this award is the Washington State Department of Transportation, which documented almost $10 million of savings and efficiency gains last fiscal year through demand, supplier and process management

Quality. The Pareto Award accreditation is earned only by OA4 accredited agencies who have undergone extensive evaluation by a third party review team and met all performance requirements.

Kelly Okken, CPPB, VCO, James Madison University, Va., won the NIGP Diversity Essay Award for â&#x20AC;&#x153;Can Diversity Be Evaluated in Public Sector Procurement Process?â&#x20AC;?

Ruth Estrada, CPPB, City of Tucson, Ariz., won the NIGP Ethics Essay Award for â&#x20AC;&#x153;Even Superman Has a Weakness: What is Your Kryptonite?â&#x20AC;?

Multnomah County Purchasing, Ore., won the NIGP Innovation Award for developing an in-house, low-cost computer-based platform to train those with procurement and contract development roles throughout the organization. Using off-the-shelf computer-based course development software and a freeware learning management system, they were able to achieve a 69 percent savings over contracting for the work. In addition, the computer-based training provides Contract Administrators access to greatly needed educational resources that are flexible to their individual schedules.

This procurement training solution was made available to support the training needs of other agency departments.

Sound Transit Procurement and Contracts Division, Seattle, Wash., won the Pareto Award of Excellence in Public Procurement. The Pareto Award is the pinnacle award for public procurement excellence. It is tantamount to the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award and the Deming Prize for

OA4 ACCREDITATION AWARD RECIPIENTS Achievement of OA4 accreditation is awarded based on successful completion of an agency self-evaluation process that assesses performance in 12 key functional areas. Obtaining OA4 accreditation is a

prerequisite to qualifying for the pinnacle agency accreditation in public procurement, the Pareto Award of Excellence.

Arizona Department of Transportation Atlanta Public Schools, Ga. Chesterfield County, Va. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii City of Chandler, Ariz.

City of Richmond, Va. Cobb County School District, Ga. Cobb County, Ga. Colorado Springs School District 11, Colo.

Denver Public Schools, Colo.

Fulton County, Ga. Gwinnett County, Ga. Howard County, Md. Loudoun County, Va. Miami-Dade County, Fla. Pima County, Ariz.

Region of Peel, Ontario Texas Department of Transportation

,)&4-//2% S 4RUCK -OUNTED #RANE

&T ,BS -OMENT 2ATING

,B -AXIMUM #APACITY s &T 0OWER %XTENSION s #ONTINUOUS 2OTATION s (EX "OOM s 7IRELESS 2EMOTE #ONTROL s (IGH 3PEED 0LANETARY 'EAR 7INCH s !LL STANDARD FEATURES OF THIS NEW CRANE

,)&4-//2% ).# ,)&4-//2% ).# (OUSTON 4EXAS s &!8

WWW LIFTMOORE COM ,IFTMOORE MANUFACTURES ELECTRIC AND HYDRAULIC CRANES WITH CAPACITIES TO ,BS

IN DEPTH [NIGP awards] 2012 CERTIFIED AGENCIES Alaska Department of General Services Anderson County, Tenn.

Anne Arundel County Schools, Md. Arizona Office of Tourism City of Ames, Iowa City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa City of Chandler, Ariz.

City of Dunwoody, Ga. City of Clearwater, Fla. City of Goodyear, Ariz.

City of Fort Collins, Colo.

City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. City of League City, Texas City of Longmont, Colo.

City of Miami Gardens, Fla. City of Naperville, Ill. City of Olathe, Kan. City of Oviedo, Fla. City of Raymore, Mo. City of Port St Lucie, Fla. City of Red Wing, Minn.

City of Sparks, Nev. City of Tarpon Springs, Fla.

City of Venice, Fla. City of Wheaton, Ill. City of Winter Park, Fla. Glendale Elementary School District, Ariz.

Hinds Community College, Miss.

Johnson County, Kan. Kentucky Division of Engineering and Contract Administration King George County, Va. Larimer County, Colo.

Little Rock Wastewater, Ark. Livingston County, Mich.

Louisiana Dept of Transportation and Development Maricopa County, Ariz.

Nashville Electric Service, Tenn.

Ohio Department of Aging Ohio Lottery Commission Old Dominion University, Va. Polk State College, Fla. Santa Rosa Co School Board, Fla. Technical College System of Georgia Texas Racing Commission Town of Marana, Ariz.

Town of Oro Valley, Ariz.

Unified Purchasing Cooperative of the Ohio River Valley, Ohio Village of Glenview, Ill. Village of Niles, Ill. Warren County, Miss.

Wichita Public Schools, Unified School District 259, Kan. NOTE: Bold text indicates Sterling Agency Award Recipient.

Through its Agency Certification Award program, the Universal Public Purchasing Certification Council (UPPCC) identifies organizations that have earned the distinguished and unique honor of achieving and/or maintaining a UPPCC fully certified public procurement staff. This program was developed to recognize those organizations that have made a concerted effort to achieve procurement excellence.

Sterling Agencies have maintained Certified Agency standing for three or more consecutive year. Visit www. uppcc.org to learn what it takes to become a Certified Agency.

Bright. Green.

A smarter way to meet sustainability goals. ®

Staples Advantage, the contract division of Staples, offers sustainable products for the best office solutions that support your environmental objectives and your budget.

UÊ Ê«>ÀÌ iÀÊV ÌÌi`ÊÌ ÊÞ ÕÀÊÃÕÃÌ> >L ÌÞÊ} > à UÊÊ"ÛiÀÊ£ä]äääÊ«À `ÕVÌÃÊÜ Ì ÊÀi`ÕVi`Êi Û À i Ì> Ê «>VÌ UÊÊ Õi ivwV i ÌÊ`i ÛiÀÞÊÌ À Õ} Ê> i iVÌÀ VÊÌÀÕV Ã]Êëii`ÊÀi`ÕVÌ Ê> `Ê Ài UÊÊ,iVÞV }ÊÃiÀÛ ViÃÊv ÀÊÌ iÀÊ> `Ê ]Êi Ü>ÃÌi]ÊVi Ê« iÃÊ> `ÊvÕÀ ÌÕÀiÊ«À `ÕVÌà To learn more or to become a customer, visit StaplesAdvantage.com/statelocalgov

26 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

PEOPLE [cppo/cppb]

PERFORMANCE DATA ON THE LATEST CERTIFICATION EXAMS uccessfully completing UPPCC certification exams in May 2012 were 208 individuals, including 151 who earned the CPPB certification and 57 who earned the CPPO. To date, 8,921 CPPB and 2,125 CPPO certifications have been awarded by the UPPCC. (See complete list of May certificants on page 28.)

The Certified Public Purchasing Officer (CPPO) and Certified Professional Public Buyer (CPPB) are globally recognized credentials offered exclusively by the Universal Public Purchasing Certification Council (UPPCC). The certification programs systematically raise the level of professionalism within the public procurement profession by offering recognition to those individuals who meet an established standard of competency for public procurement demonstrated through a rigorous application process and superior examination performance.

A comprehensive written examination (specific to each certification) is required to confirm the candidateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mastery of a variety of public procurement concepts found in the UPPCC Body of Knowledge.

The UPPCC has released key performance data from the May 2012 examinations: Overall Scoring/Passing Rates. Sixty-one percent of the 94 total candidates who tested for the CPPO passed, while 57 percent of the 264 candidates who tested for the CPPB passed. Mean passing scores for CPPB candidates were 36 points higher than for CPPO. Testing Time. The total testing time permitted for both examinations is 3.5 hours. This equates to a total of 210 minutes for 190 questions (175 operational or scored and 15 pre-test questions), or on average 1 minute and 10 seconds for each test question. For CPPO, the average completion time was 2.70 hours with a range from 3.5 hours maximum to .75 hours minimum. For the CPPB, the average completion time was 2.63 hours with a range from 3.5 hours maximum to 1.05 hours minimum.

Exam Content. Content for both the CPPO and CPPB examinations are dictated by the 2008 UPPCC Body of Knowledge (BOK). A total of 10 domain areas comprise the BOK: 1. Administration Aspects of Purchasing 2. Procurement Requests 3. Solicitation and Evaluation of Bids/Proposals 4. Supplier Analysis 5. Negotiation Process 6. Contract Award and Administration 7. External/Internal Relationships 8. Materiels Management

S

9. Human Resources/Personnel 10. Forecasting and Strategies The UPPCC reports that for both CPPO and CPPB, candidates performed the best in Domain 6: Contract Award and Administration. CPPO candidates performed the poorest in Domain 4: Supplier Analysis and Domain 8: Materiels Management. Conversely, CPPB candidates had the most difficulty in Domain10: Forecasting and Strategies.

Candidate Preparation. UPPCC reports that most candidates indicated, via a post examination survey, spending between three and six months preparing for their respective examinations. The organization also reports that CPPO candidates who indicated spending one month or less preparing experienced the highest rates of passing compared to other timeframes of preparation; however, in evaluating CPPB candidate performance, preparation times between one and three months, as indicated by high passing rates, appeared to be the optimal timeframe.

ÂŽ

The SnocreteÂŽ name was adopted by Fair Mfg. Inc., as a word used to describe the snow of the Dakotas. Any snowblower can blow light fluffy snow, but SnocreteÂŽ Snowblowers are engineered to move the hardest snow and ice, and endure the harshest conditions expected of them.

The SnocreteÂŽ line is available in a variety of sizes, each featuring twin fan impellers with ice chopper bars. To see why SnocreteÂŽ Snowblowers are truly the best built and performing snowblowers on the market, call or visit our website today.

PO Box 536 Menno, SD 57045 (605) 387-2389 sales@fairmfg.com www.fairmfg.com

XXX HPWQSP DPN r GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT | 27

PEOPLE [meet the pros]

> UPPCC new certifications May 2012—The Universal Public Procurement Certification Council (UPPCC) announces that 196 individuals successfully completed the spring 2012 UPPCC certification examinations administered May 7-19, 2012.The Certified Public Procurement Officer (CPPO) and Certified Professional Public Buyer (CPPB) credentials are recognized throughout the public procurement profession as demonstration of an individual’s comprehensive knowledge of public procurement. Of the 208 newly certified individuals, 151 earned the CPPB certification and 57earned the CPPO certification. This newest class of professionals brings the total number certified for CPPB and CPPO to 8,921 and 2,125 respectively.

CPPO Alice C. Bailey, CPPO, C.P.M. City of Sumter, S.C. Daphne A. Burch, CPPO, GCPA, GCPCA Armstrong Atlantic State University, Ga. Stephanie H. Chen, CPPO San Diego Convention Center, Calif.

Sandra E. Clifford, CPPO, J.D. Maryland Port Administration James W. Cockrell, CPPO State of Illinois Procurement

Laurie A. Gaudet, CPPO, CPPB Corporation of the County of Simcoe, Ontario, Canada Sherry George, CPPO Port Chester-Rye School District, N.Y. Jon W. Hopkins, CPPO, A.A.,B.A. County of Amador, Calif.

Wendy L. Miller, CPPO, CPPB St. Johns River Water Management District, Fla.

Robert P. Jones, CPPO, CPPB Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development

Randy M. Cross, CPPO City of Miramar, Fla.

Cheral A. Jones, CPPO, CPPB Washington - Department of Enterprise Services, Contracts and Legal Services – Master Contracts and Consulting

Christopher M. Flynn, CPPO State of Illinois Procurement Karen S. Forbes, CPPO City of Pasadena, Texas

28 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

Adam P. Manne, CPPO Prince William County, Va.

Dean P. Hudson, CPPO Coastal Carolina University, S.C.

Michelle L. Comeau, CPPO, CPPB Halifax Regional Water Commission, Nova Scotia, Canada

Marilyn J. Douglas, CPPO,CPPB City of Longwood, Fla.

Paula K. Mah, CPPO, CPPB City of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Yetta S. Meadows, CPPO Marshall University, W.V.

Courtney A. Hunt, CPPO, CPPB Fulton County Schools, Ga.

Kenneth Crutcher, CPPO State of Illinois Procurement

Robin A. Lynes, CPPO, CPPB Wichita Public Schools, Kan.

Karen D. HubbardWashington, CPPO, C.P.M. Washington, DC

Bruce D. Collins, CPPO City of El Paso, Texas

Rufus G. Crowder, CPPO,CPPB County of Galveston, Texas

Mark W. Lutte, CPPO State of Maine, Maine

Philip C. Kaufmann, CPPO State of Illinois Procurement Terri L. Kindsfather, CPPO, CPPB, CPIM City of Lakewood, Colo.

Pamela A. Lange, CPPO, CPPB, C.P.M. Clark County School District, Nev.

Elizabeth H. Moss, CPPO, J.D. Howard Community College, Md. Cathie L. Nash, CPPO, CPPB Maryland State Retirement Agency Rey A. Palma, CPPO, CPPB, MPA Georgia Building Authority, Ga. Catherine A. Payne, CPPO, CPPB Corporation of the County of Simcoe, Ontario, Canada Kathy W. Perry, CPPO, CPPB Texas Department of Transportation Loralei M. Poll, CPPO, CPPB Valley Metro Rail Procurement Department, Ariz.

John E. Red Horse, CPPO, CPPB Pinal County, Ariz.

Christine A. Rewis, CPPO, CPPB, FCCM Polk County Board of County Commissioners, Fla. Ronald R. Rowland, CPPO State of Ohio Maria J. Salvatierra, CPPO, CPPB, MBA City of North Miami Beach, Fla. Jennifer D. Sanchez, CPPO Town of Orange Park, Fla. Amadu Sankoh, CPPO Ohio Department of Education Kevin M. Scheirer, CPPO State of Maine Billie F. Smith, CPPO, CPPB City of Huntsville, Texas Edward L. Smylie, CPPO City of Farmington, N.M. Laura Stephens, CPPO, CPPB Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Ky. Julie Taylor, CPPO, CPPB San Mateo County Transit, Calif.

Brandon D. Thomas, CPPO Utah Valley University, Utah David R. Tincher, CPPO West Virginia Department of Administration

Roberta Wagner, CPPO, CPPB, CPIM West Virginia Department of Administration Dave D. Wells, CPPO, CPPB Toronto District School Board, Ontario, Canada Michael A. Wenzel, CPPO State of Maine Angela C. White, CPPO Prince William County Service Authority, Va. Lezlye S. Williams, CPPO Broward County Sheriffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office, Fla. Michael J. Woodall, CPPO District School Board of Pasco County, Fla. Dwayne A. Young, CPPO, CPPB, VCCO, VCO Old Dominion University, N.C. Yu Zhu, CPPO, C.P.M. Montgomery Community College, Va.

CPPB Deborah J. Adams, CPPB City of Punta Gorda, Fla. Scott A. Agnello, CPPB Corporation of the City of Kitchener, Ontario, Canada Amy Almanzar, CPPB Broward County Board of County Commissioners, Fla. Cynthia Alonzo, CPPB City of Denton, Texas Lori A. Andrews, CPPB State of Illinois Procurement Colleen T. Bailey, CPPB City of Yakima, Wash.

Debbie L. Bakker, CPPB Corporation of the City of Brantford, Ontario, Canada Sherry-Ann Besla, CPPB Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario, Canada Kayci E. Bohlen, CPPB State of Illinois Procurement Tara K. Bohnsack, CPPB Hernando County, Fla.

Bambi L. Brenden, CPPB Arizona Department of Administration Christopher L. Bresley, CPPB Loudoun County, Va. Delia Bridges, CPPB City of Macon, Ga. Adrian Brown, CPPB,JD City of Palo Alto, Calif.

Guinevere A. Bruner, CPPB County of Bucks, Pa. Joanna Brzezicki, CPPB Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario, Canada Steven R. Burns, CPPB St. Maryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County Government, Md. Tracie A. Byrne, CPPB City of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Holly G. Cafferata, CPPB Gwinnett County, Ga. Warivone (Vonnie) Caporiccio, CPPB Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario, Canada Michael S. Carter, CPPB Mohave Educational Services Cooperative, Ariz.

Deborah M. Castaldo, CPPB Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Md. Colleen L. Caton, CPPB State of Illinois Procurement Michelle E.Charnoski, CPPB City of Dallas, Texas Jason K. Chernecky, CPPB York University, Ontario, Canada Christopher C. Cohen, CPPB Washington State Department of Transportation Mitchell P. Cohen, CPPB Broward County Board of County Commissioners, Fla. Nancy L. Colbaugh, CPPB Mohave Educational Services Cooperative, Ariz.

LaSonya Collins, CPPB City of Indianapolis, Ind. Kristen L. Collora, CPPB Flagler County Board of County Commissioners, Fla. Edward (Ted) F. Coyman, CPPB Sarasota County, Fla. Mirjana Maryanne Cucuz, CPPB City of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Nyesha Daley, CPPB Smyrna, Ga. Gerrell Y. Dangerfield, CPPB Berkeley County, S.C. Michael F. Dauta, CPPB City of Boynton Beach, Fla. Alfredo De Luna, CPPB County of Los Angeles, Calif.

Eduardo (Ed) F. DeLaVega, CPPB Village of Wellington, Fla. Teresa Donsbach, CPPB,CTPS City of Indianapolis, Ind.

Krista S. Ferrell, CPPB West Virginia Department of Administration Jo-Anne L. Filipkowski, CPPB Hauppauge Public Schools, N.Y. Robin F. Friefield, CPPB City of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Kathleen P. George, CPPB Oregon State Lottery Toby W. Giddings, CPPB Oregon Department of Administrative Service Janielle M. Graham, CPPB State of Illinois Procurement Stacy Gregg, CPPB Richland County School District One, S.C. Christine A. Grommons, CPPB Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, Nev. Joetta Gross, CPPB University of Missouri System, Mo.

Belinda G. Dunn, CPPB DeKalb County, Ga.

Marlys K. Hagen, CPPB, C.P.M. State of Alaska

Karma L. Durre, CPPB Polk County Sheriffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office, Fla.

Harold W. Hamby, CPPB Polk County School Board, Fla.

Victor C. Emenanjor, CPPB New York City Human Resources Administration

James L. Hanney, CPPB Hillsborough County Department of Procurement Services, Fla.

Debra A. Espinoza, CPPB El Paso Community College, Texas

Mary K. Harper, CPPB City of Columbus, Ohio

Tiffany M. Evans, CPPB Fairfax County Public Schools, Va. Wanda R. Farmer, CPPB, M.B.A. City of Newport News, Va. Susan (Su) A. Fennern, CPPB, OPBC Oregon Department of Education, Ore. Jeannette D. Ferrell, CPPB, MBA Broward County Board of County Commissioners, Fla.

Mark M. Haywood, CPPB DeKalb County, Ga. Kathleen A. Herman, CPPB San Diego Unified School District, Calif.

James H. Hoagland, CPPB Delaware Department of Transportation, DE Rebecca C. Hoffman, CPPB Fairfax County Government, Va.

XXX HPWQSP DPN r GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT | 29

PEOPLE [meet the pros] Anthony Holt, CPPB Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Calif.

Chad M. Jorissen, CPPB Whatcom Transportation Authority, Wash.

Eileen M. Hunt, CPPB School Board of Broward County, Fla.

Maye E. Kelsey, CPPB State of Illinois Procurement

Lenika A. Hutchens, CPPB Washington County , Ore. Nicole Jensson, CPPB Olmsted County, Minn.

Anne Jewell, CPPB State of Maryland Jeannine C. Joergensen, CPPB San Diego Unified School District, Calif.

Jennifer M. Jolley, CPPB Oregon Department of Revenue

Kellye Keyes Jackson, CPPB State of Illinois Procurement Jonathan Klinkenberg, CPPB Saint Paul Public Schools ISD #625, Minn.

John C. Knittle, CPPB State of Illinois Procurement Nancy B. Knudsen, CPPB Maryland State Highway Administration John W. Kohut, CPPB City of Dallas, Texas

Sau Lee, CPPB County of Los Angeles, Calif.

Javon S. Lewis, CPPB Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, Ohio

Janet L. Malloy, CPPB York Regional Police, Ontario, Canada Frederick P. Mannino, CPPB City of Biloxi, Miss.

Susana Liang, CPPB Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada

Sheila R. Mansell, CPPB Florida Department of Military Affairs, Fla.

Christina D. Lochbaum, CPPB Ohio Department of Public Safety

Erick A. Martinez, CPPB Miami Dade County Internal Services Department, Fla.

Yvonne A. Lucas, CPPB City of Long Beach, Calif.

Patrice D. Luehring, CPPB, BS Little Rock National Airport, Ark.

Miguel A. Martinez, CPPB,FCCM Orlando, Fla. Michael J. Marzullo, CPPB Loudoun County, Va.

Rachelle L. Jones, CPPB Hernando County, Fla.

Yuliana Konovalova, CPPB Metro Transit Authority, N.Y.

Christopher J. Maher, CPPB City of Mesa, Ariz.

Mansfield W. Matthewson, CPPB, C. P. M. Grand Rapids Community College, Mich.

Edward M. Jordan, CPPB County of Ulster, N.Y.

Laura R. Langston, CPPB Houston County Board of Education, Ga.

Tesfamichael Makonnen, CPPB State of Ohio

Joan M. McCarty, CPPB Region of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

MAKE MOLEHILLS OUT OF MOUNTAINS. The Cushman 1600XD lives to conquer any job.

There’s no task too big for the 22-hp diesel engine, 1,600-lb payload and massive cargo bed. And no matter where work needs to be done, you’ll get there thanks to user-selectable 4WD, a locking rear differential and 4-wheel independent suspension.

So, whether you’re moving mountains or driving over them, the 1600XD is ready for action.

LET’S WORK.

www.cushman.com © 2012 Textron Inc. All rights reserved.

Clare A. McGrane, CPPB Pinellas County, Fla. Molly McLoughlin, CPPB Boulder Valley School District, Colo.

Betty (Elizabeth) Miller, CPPB City of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Jolena K. Missildine, CPPB, CCM Washington State Department of Transportation Terry V. Nicholson, CPPB City of Austin, Texas Catherine A. Nocco, CPPB Sachem Central School District, N.Y. Jamie D. Oakley, CPPB Regional Municipality of York, Ontario, Canada Jacqueline Osti, CPPB County of Wellington, Ontario, Canada Lisa A. Parkison, CPPB Wayne-Finger Lakes BOCES, N.Y. Carrie D. Parks, CPPB Placer County Water Agency, Calif.

Carrie A. Patrick, CPPB Harris County, Texas Michael A. Pfister, CPPB County of Santa Clara, Calif.

Wanda G. Pleasant, CPPB Houston Community College, Procurement Operations Department, Texas Monica Powery, CPPB City of Greenacres, Fla. Darlene D. Reynolds, CPPB District of Columbia Superior Court, DC Cynthia J. Rigby, CPPB Queensbury Union Free School District, N.Y. Zaida Riollano, CPPB,CCA Broward College, Fla. Vearnetta N. Rivers, CPPB Fulton County - Department of Purchasing, Ga.

Jesus D. Rosario, CPPB, C.P.M. Sacramento Job Corps Center, Calif.

Gustavo M. Rossell, CPPB Albuquerque Public Schools, N.M. Sarah L. Roth, CPPB Oregon Secretary of State, Ore. Kate H. Rouse, CPPB Hillsborough County Public Schools, Fla.

Terri A. Smith, CPPB City of Virginia Beach, Va. Aimee O. Storm, CPPB Plano, Texas Peter G. Taylor, CPPB Chignecto-Central Regional School Board, Nova Scotia, Canada Eric J. Thompson, CPPB University of Wisconsin Madison SSEC

Solomon Wedderburn, CPPB Corporation of the City of Brantford, Ontario, Canada Karl L. Wendt, CPPB,CPSM Iowa Dept of Administrative Services Guy A. Werner, CPPB Maryland State Retirement Agency

Gayle A. Thomson, CPPB Kitsap Transit, Wash.

Adrian C. Ruger, CPPB, C.P.M. State of Utah, Division of Purchasing, Utah

Amy M. Wheeler, CPPB Nashville Electric Service, Tenn.

Marina L. Tuileta, CPPB Superior Court of California, County of Orange

Robert D. Wicker, CPPB City of Jacksonville â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fla.

Lisa S. Ryals, CPPB College Center for Library Automation, Fla.

Life A. Verlooy, CPPB St. Louis County Purchasing Division, Minn.

Cyndee D. Sams, CPPB,FCCN,FCCM Florida Department of Children and Families, Fla.

Candace J. Vis, CPPB Town of Queen Creek, Ariz.

Adam Walker, CPPB City of Ottawa, Ontario

Andrew M. Yunt, CPPB,BA/BS Commission for Children with Special Health Care Needs, Ky.

Sandra S. Sanchez, CPPB,C.P.M.,A.P.P. Albuquerque Public Schools, N.M.

Rose M. Weaver, CPPB City of Virginia Beach, Va.

Elizabeth J. Zink, CPPB Pinal County, Ariz.

Claudia Sanchez, CPPB Montebello Unified School District, Calif.

David E. Schlueter, CPPB City of Minneapolis, Minn.

Denise Schulsinger, CPPB Hernando County, Fla. Doug W. Schwartz, CPPB Public School Retirement System of Mo. Debra L. Scott, CPPB,OBPC,OPMA Oregon Department of Administrative Service Richelieu M. Sese, CPPB City of Independence, Mo. Jennifer L. Shaefer, CPPB State of Ohio Sarah S. Shanmugam, CPPB Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario, Canada

Larry L. Woo, CPPB Pinal County, Ariz.

Beverly M. Yount, CPPB City of Piqua, Ohio

ADVERTISER INDEX ADVERTISER .......................................................PAGE APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES ......... 20 ARI FLEET .................................................................BC ELECTRALED, INC. ................................................. 15 E-Z-GO ........................................................................ 30 FAIR MANUFACTURING, INC. ............................ 27 FORD MOTOR COMPANY ....................................... 3 HD SUPPLY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE ......... 22 IMAGING SUPPLIES COALITION.......................... 5 INSIGHT ENTERPRISES, INC. .............................. 21 INTIRION-MICROFRIDGE .................................. IBC JOHN DEERE ...........................................................IFC LIFTMOORE INC. ..................................................... 25 MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL ..................... 6, 7 NATIONAL JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION.... 11 PUBLIC SOURCING SOLUTIONS ....................... 14 SERVICEWEAR APPAREL ..................................... 19 STAPLES ADVANTAGE .......................................... 26 U.S. COMMUNITIES ..................................... 16-17, 18 U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION .. 9

Cathrine A.Sheckell, CPPB Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Ind.

XXX HPWQSP DPN r GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT | 31

BACK PAGES [fred marks]

T&M: Not a license to steal ention a T&M contract to most buyers and you’ll see their face frozen in dismay.

You can just hear the words “blank check” and “license to steal” going through their minds. Time and material contracts are a complex method of contracting with potential for abuse. You are paying for direct labor at a fixed hourly rate (which includes direct and indirect labor, overhead and profit) and materials at cost or at a previously agreed-upon material cost markup. The most common types of T&M contracts are repair or service contracts. Each one has special needs and requirements, and the buyer, contract administrator and vendor each have important roles to play if the contract is to be successful.

It’s up to the buyer to research the particular pricing structure and labor rates of the categories that will be performing on their contract. I have previously written here about repair contracts (Government Procurement, June 2008) and how one can structure estimated hours to effect a repair. A journeyman mechanic is priced at a different rate than a trades helper. Labor rates differ in each specialized trade depending on experience, time in grade, training, certification and abilities.

Check information on the contractor’s personnel; ask for copies of their certifications and the standing of those certifications in a particular industry. Anyone can print a certificate. You should be looking for certifications that can be verified by training and education and have transparency.

The contract administrator has a difficult job in that he or she is responsible to verify not only that the work is done correctly, but also the time each category of labor spends on a specific project task. In the case of a large number of employees, such as a painting contract, verification of the vendor’s personnel should be done by sign-in sheets, proof of identity using government-issued ID, and a random taking of attendance. You may be better served by using a database to keep track of the vendor’s personnel. Your buyer, client and contract administrator should work as a team to set down the rules on how the contract will be administered, and I would also include those rules in the contract documents. Remember the “no surprises” rule. Neither party wants them!

One of the biggest complaints about a T&M contract from Bill Lindsey of Gloucester County, Va., is that there is no incentive for the vendor to control costs or to have an end in sight. I would like to think that most vendors are responsible businesses and want to provide enough detailed information to a buyer so their costs are covered in the schedule of unit prices and other pricing information revealed by the buyer’s research.

To that end, it’s the responsibility of the buyer to ensure that a detailed account of what needs to be accomplished is provided and approved prior to the commencement of any work. Verification of the vendor’s claims for additional work is difficult unless you have an expert on staff who can help you. Just remember, you can rent help. Look around and see what an independent consultant will charge to verify claims. Contact a testing lab; ask a colleague in another public body if they will “loan” you an expert (it’s how we work together as a profession).

Some buyers put in a “not to exceed” clause which may work for your particular needs.

Some use estimated hours, and others rely on a quote prior to the start of work. Whatever you use, verify, verify and verify. There are instances of additional work to be performed after agreed-upon work starts. Write a decent and liberal extra work clause and make it dependent on the vendor’s complete explanation of what needs to be performed. The agreement of the client and contract administrator will complete your audit trail.

M

FREDERICK MARKS, CPPO, VCO, is a retired purchasing officer who has held positions as a supervising buyer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as well as director of material management for Northern Virginia Community College. Contact Marks at fmarks@mindspring.com.

32 | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012

The Comforts of Home ŝŶ ŽŶĞ ĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚ ĂƉƉůŝĂŶĐĞ DŝĐƌŽ&ƌŝĚŐĞΠ ǁŝƚŚ ^ĂĨĞ WůƵŐΠ allows you to chill and heat your food ĂŶĚ ĐŚĂƌŐĞ LJŽƵƌ ĞǀĞƌLJĚĂLJ ĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐƐ ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐ ĐĞůů ƉŚŽŶĞƐ ůĂƉƚŽƉƐ DWϯ ƉůĂLJĞƌƐ ĂŶĚ ĚŝŐŝƚĂů ĐĂŵĞƌĂƐ dŚĞ ŵŽƐƚ ƉŽƉƵůĂƌ ĐŽŵďŝŶĂƟŽŶ ĂƉƉůŝĂŶĐĞ ŝŶ ŵĞƌŝĐĂ ŽīĞƌƐ ƚŚĞ ƐĂĨĞƚLJ ĂŶĚ ĞŶĞƌŐLJ ĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ ďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ǁŝƚŚ ^ĂĨĞ WůƵŐΠ ƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ dŚŝƐ ŝƐ ŶŽ ŽƌĚŝŶĂƌLJ ƌĞĨƌŝŐĞƌĂƚŽƌ DŝĐƌŽ&ƌŝĚŐĞΠ ǁŝƚŚ ^ĂĨĞ WůƵŐΠ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ, ( 10-Year Warranty KƵƌ ŽŶ)ƐŝƚĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ŽŶůLJ ĂĚĚƐ ƚŽ ǁŚĂƚ ŝƐ ďLJ ĨĂƌ ĂŶ ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ďĞƐƚ ǁĂƌƌĂŶƚLJ ( Safe Plug® Technology: ƉĂƚĞŶƚ)ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ ƉŽǁĞƌ ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ƐLJƐƚĞŵ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĞƐ ĞŶĞƌŐLJ ĂŶĚ ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƐ ĐŝƌĐƵŝƚ ŽǀĞƌůŽĂĚƐ ( ƵĂů ŚĂƌŐŝŶŐ ^ƚĂƟŽŶ Makes it easy and ĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚ ƚŽ ĐŚĂƌŐĞ ƉĞƌƐŽŶĂů ĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐ ĚĞǀŝĐĞƐ ( ŶĞƌŐLJ ĸĐŝĞŶƚ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞ ĞŶĞƌŐLJ ƐĂǀĞ ƵƟůŝƟĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚ ƚŚĞ ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ

/ŶƟƌŝŽŶ ŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶ Ϯ ŶŶĞƩĞ ZŽĂĚ ^ƵŝƚĞ ϯ &ŽdžďŽƌŽ D ϬϮϬϯϱ ;ဒϬϬ ϲϯϳ ϳϱϲϳ ǁǁǁ ŵŝĐƌŽĨƌŝĚŐĞ ĐŽŵ$ŐŽƉƌŽ DŝĐƌŽ&ƌŝĚŐĞΠ ĂŶĚ ^ĂĨĞ WůƵŐΠ ĂƌĞ ƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚ ƚƌĂĚĞŵĂƌŬƐ ŽĨ /ŶƟƌŝŽŶ ŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶ Ξ /ŶƟƌŝŽŶ ŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶ ϮϬϭϮ

Think big.

We’re talking about the ability to handle Big Data—more data than ever before. Diverse data, on a global scale. And not just handle it. Master it. So you can get more done. In fact, ARI analytics™ does everything in a big way—including saving you time and money.

Get reports on the fly across multiple categories and much more.

analytics

Call today for a demo: 800-477-4715 arifleet.com